The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand (2000) by Rev. Anthony Cekada Did Archbishop Lefebvre perform a doubtful ordination? IN 1990, I RECEIVED a letter from a priest who claimed that Arch- bishop Marcel Lefebvre had performed a “dubious” priestly or- dination in the 1970s by supposedly imposing only one hand (instead of both) on the head of each ordinand. The imposition of hands on the candidate’s head is, accord- ing to Pius XII’s 1947 Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis,1 the “matter” (i.e., essential visible sign or action) for conferring the Holy Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy. Referring readers to works by two authors, the priest main- tained that the validity of a priestly ordination conferred with one hand was questionable, and that the dozen or so priests or- dained that day were thus “dubiously” ordained. The good Father, it should be noted, had himself been or- dained by Abp. Lefebvre. He had heard this tale many years be- fore, but nevertheless continued to work alongside several of these priests. He raised the issue only after he’d had a major public dispute with one of them. In any event, the priest prevailed upon a number of other priests to sign the letter with him. One of the signers soon con- cluded that he had been duped, and then honorably withdrew the charge. Others would follow his lead. The first difficulty was the authority of the works the insti- gator had cited. One had been written by a somewhat reputable Jesuit theologian, the Rev. Clarence McAuliffe — but it turned out to be merely a college religion textbook. The other was a doc- toral dissertation by the Rev. Walter Clancy — who wrote no other works and then left the priesthood. This is hardly the Sum- ma. But what was worse, the priest had misrepresented (read “lied about”) what both authors said. Here are the passages which his letter cited but did not quote: Although the bishop imposes both hands when ordaining a priest or bishop, it is very probable that the imposition of on- ly one hand would suffice for validity.2 A moral contact, however, is sufficient for the validity of an or- dination. If the bishop were to impose only one hand, as in the ordination of a deacon, the effect of this action as a sensi- ble sign productive of invisible grace would not be lost, in the opinion of this author. The words of the form would de- termine the application of the matter to the Order of the priesthood. Since [Pius XII’s] Constitution does demand the imposition of both hands of the bishop (impositio manuum), 1. Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, 30 November 1947, DZ 2301. 2. Clarence McAuliffe SJ, Sacramental Theology: A Textbook for Advanced Students (St. Louis: B. Herder 1958), 361. — 1 — however, in the ordination of a priest, the facts should be pre- sented to the Holy See for a judgment.3 Even if one were to accept Clancy’s careless recapitulation of what Pius XII actually decreed4 — and the Holy See did, by the way, rule that such an ordination was valid — neither author actually states that a priestly ordination conferred with one hand is “dubious.” The passages highlighted above indicate the oppo- site instead: that an ordination conferred with one hand is valid. In the ideal order, one would leave it at that: The priest who instigated the accusation: (1) cited questionable authorities, and then (2) lied about what they said. Bad theology — case closed. But bad theology has practical consequences. The priest conducted a whispering campaign against the priests whose or- dination he had attacked, and then began conditionally re- administering sacraments to laymen who had already received sacraments from them. At the root of the charge (apart from obvious malice) is igno- rance of the principles of sacramental theology. For the benefit of laymen (or even priests) who have been taken in by this tale, I will lay out the pertinent principles and draw the appropriate conclusions. The Key Issue: Substantial Change Matter and form are two essential components of every sac- rament. Matter is the visible thing or action necessary for confer- ring a sacrament — pouring water for baptism, bread and wine for the Eucharist, etc. Form is the short phrase that the Church designated as essential for validity — “I baptize you” etc., “This is my body…,” etc. In his 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII settled a long-standing debate among theologians when he decreed that the essential matter for conferring the Holy Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy was one and the same: the imposition of hands.5 For the ordination rite proper to each of these Orders, Pius XII specified further where in the respective rites this essential imposition of hands on the candidate’s head takes place. The rites for diaconal ordination and episcopal consecration each contain only one imposition of hands. For diaconate it occurs when the bishop imposes his right hand during the consecratory Preface; for episcopacy it takes place when the bishop and the bishop co-consecrators together impose both hands, saying “Re- ceive the Holy Ghost.” For the rite of priestly ordination, which contains two impo- sitions of hands, Pius XII decreed: In ordination to the priesthood, the matter is the first imposi- tion of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence, but not the continuation of this imposition by the extending of the right hand, nor the last imposition which is accompanied by the 3. Walter B. Clancy, The Rites and Ceremonies of Sacred Ordination (Canons 1002– 1005), (Washington DC: Catholic University Press 1962), 70–71. 4. Sacramentum Ordinis §4 does not “demand” an imposition of “both” hands. It merely designates which imposition constitutes the matter: “In ordination to the priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence.” 5. For a brief history of the debate, see Appendix II. — 2 — words: “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall for- give,” etc.6 Now, since Pius XII used the plural (imposition of hands), should one therefore infer that, if a bishop were to impose only one hand at priestly ordination, the ordination would be ren- dered “dubious”? The answer is given in a work by the Rev. Eduoardo Regatillo, Dean of the Canon Law faculty at the Pon- tifical University of Comillas (Madrid): From the fact of Pius XII designating the imposition of hands as the essential matter for priesthood and episcopate, one should not dig out the idea that imposing both hands is required for the validity of an ordination.7 Regatillo’s reply is founded on a fundamental principle in sacramental theology: Only a substantial change in the matter of a sacrament renders it invalid. A substantial change occurs when the matter for a sacrament “differs in name and in reality according to common use and estimation from that which Christ established.” Otherwise, a change is merely accidental. An accidental change does not affect validity.8 The issue of what type of hosts must be used for Mass illus- trates how this distinction is applied. The law for the Latin Rite prescribes that hosts be made from wheat flour and be unleav- ened. Rye or corn flour is considered a substantial change and in- validates the sacrament. Using wheat flour, but adding a bit of yeast, as the Eastern Rites do, is considered merely an accidental change. The key issue about the matter at hand (pardon the pun) may therefore be framed as follows: Does imposing one hand where a rite prescribes the im- posing two hands represent a substantial change in the matter of a sacrament, i.e. so that it differs “in name and reality” from the matter that Christ established? And specifically, would such an imposition at a priestly or- dination render it “dubious”? On both counts, the answer is no. This is evident, as we shall see below, from the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis itself, the terminology of various ritual and theological texts, Leo XIII’s Bull Apostolicae Curae, papal ordination rites, a decree of Pope Gregory IX, Eastern Rite ordination rituals, and the writings of the only theologians who seem to have addressed the issue. And finally, as we shall also see, the Holy Office (the Vatican tribunal to which Canon Law gives the competency to decide ordination cases) said in the 1950s that an ordination conferred with one hand is indeed valid. Obviously, this settles the issue. 6. Sacramentum Ordinis, DZ 2301, §4. “In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem imposi- tionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima cui coniungitur verba: ‘Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.’” 7. E. Regatillo & M. Zalba, Theologiae Moralis Summa (Madrid: BAC 1954), 3:666. My emphasis. “Ergo ex eo quod Pius XII designet tamquam materiam essen- tialem presbyteratus et episcopatus impositionem manuum, erui nequit quod ad valorem ordinationis requiratur utruiusque manus impositio.” (His emphasis. ) 8. Regatillo-Zalba 3:8 “Mutatio substantialis in materia est, quando, juxta com- munem aestimationem et usum, differt nomine et re ab ea quam Christus deter- minavit; secus, erat accidentalis.” (His emphasis.) — 3 — I. Pius XII: One and the Same Matter. In his Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, having ex- plicitly invoked his supreme Apostolic Authority, declared and decreed: The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposi- tion of hands.9 In the next paragraph Pius XII treated the Orders of Diaco- nate, Priesthood and Episcopacy separately, and designated where in the ordination rite for each order this essential imposi- tion of hands occurred.